Fettered-tions and -isms
Edited By Abdul Karim Bangura
Included in this preview:
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Excerpt of Chapter 1
For additional information on adopting this book for your
class, please contact us at 800.200.3908 x501 or via
e-mail at [email protected]
FETTERED -TIONS
AND -ISMS
EDITED BY
ABDUL KARIM BANGURA
Copyright © 2011 Abdul Karim Bangura. All rights reserved. No part of this publication
may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying,
microfilming, and recording, or in any information retrieval system without the written
permission of University Readers, Inc.
First published in the United States of America in 2011 by Cognella, a division of
University Readers, Inc.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
15 14 13 12 11
12345
Printed in the United States of America
ISBN: 978-1-60927-834-2
Dedicated to Global Peace!
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments
vii
Chapter 1: General Introduction
Abdul Karim Bangura

Chapter 2: Assassination
Mark Bryan

Chapter 3: Balkanization
Vassia Gueorguieva

Chapter 4: Colonization and Neo-Colonization
Sahardid Kassim

Chapter 5: Globalization
Brad David

Chapter 6: Militarization
T. Ravi

Chapter 7: Nationalization
Tomoko Otsuka

Chapter 8: Westernization
Simran Sodhi

Chapter 9: Liberalism and Neo-Liberalism
Chris Henson

Chapter 10: Communism
Jennifer Ramsey

Chapter 11: Anarchism
Andrew Willis
Bibliography
163
179
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We, and hopefully many readers, owe gratitude to the numerous families to which we
belong, for offering their encouragement.
CHAPTER 1
GENERAL
INTRODUCTION
Abdul Karim Bangura
INTRODUCTION
his book is about fettered -tions and -isms. These linguistic units are defined here
as phenomena that have been perceived by people to hamper development and,
consequently, peaceful human relations. What appears here is an amalgamation
of two book projects: (1) Fettered -tions and (2) Daunting -isms. After three years of
waiting for some of the authors who had committed themselves to the second book, but
failing to submit their chapters, a decision was made to combine the two projects into
one book since their objectives were quite similar.
In the summers of 2003 and 2004, groups of scholars in the School of International
Service at American University in Washington, DC decided to work on the second volume
of what is emerging as a series of books dealing with various issues in the area of language
and peace. This volume, Fettered -tions and -isms, is the result of that decision. What appear
here are thoroughly revised versions of selected papers submitted for the book.
Grammarians generally define a suffix, such as -tion or ism, as an affix or a derivational
or an inflectional bound morpheme that is attached at the end of bases or stems and that
changes the meanings or syntactic functions of the words to which it is attached—e.g.,
production. Over the years, many phenomena in the world, some of which are examined
in this book, have been labeled with the -tion or -ism suffix. The other types of affixes are
called (a) prefix—that which is attached to the front of its stem, e.g., disappear, replay,
illegal, inaccurate; (b) infix—that which occurs within another morpheme, e.g., expletives
such as guaran-damn-tee, abso-bloody-lutely; and (c) reduplicative—that which duplicates
all or part of the stem, e.g., putt-putt, chop-chop, so-so, bon-bon, boo-boo (for more on
these, see O’Grady et al. 1989:95–96).
T
2 | Fettered -tions and -isms
In particular, according to Stuart Robertson and Frederic Cassidy, -ism is a suffix that
English borrowed through French and Latin from Greek. The very mention of it, with its
suggestion of the prevalence of “isms” is perhaps enough to indicate how English affixes
have often yielded ground to borrowed ones (1954:197). From a phonological perspective,
-isms, because of their linguistic origin, when they are added to words show a shift of stress.
In contrast, when a prefix or suffix of Old English origin is added to a word, it has no effect
on the position or stress.
Affixes can have varying effects when they are added to roots (Langacker 1967:74,
Pyles & Algeo 1982:5). For example, when s is added to giraffe to form giraffes, the effect
is to further specify giraffe with respect to the number of those animals. Both giraffe and
giraffes are nouns; adding the plural morpheme s does not change the grammatical class
of the word. Similarly, suffixing the past tense morpheme of the verb knock yields another
verb, knocked. However, swift and swiftly belong to different grammatical classes; swift
is an adjective, but swiftly is an adverb. There are still other affixes that relate to other
grammatical classes.
Thus, linguists often distinguish between inflectional and derivational affixes (e.g.,
Langacker 1967:74, Pyles & Algeo 1982:5). Giraffe and giraffes, intuitively, are alternate
forms of the same entity, as are swift and swiftly. The endings added to giraffe and knock
are inflectional affixes. English nouns like giraffe can be inflected for number. Knocked
contains an inflectional ending to indicate past tense.
However, the relation between swift and swiftly is of a different kind. When ly is added
to swift, it does not serve to mark agreement with some other element of the sentence or
to qualify the root with respect to number, tense, or any other comparable entity. It does
not simply yield another version of the same entity; instead, it derives from it an entity that
is quite distinct. Therefore, ly is considered a derivational affix. In addition, derivational
affixes do not always affect a change in grammatical class (Langacker 1967:75, Pyles &
Algeo 1982:5–6). For instance, the derivational prefix re relates construct and reconstruct,
yet both are verbs. Also, compare make/remake, happy/unhappy, and plausible/implausible.
Consequently, as Langacker observes, “the lexicon of a language is its inventory of
morphemes, together with information about how these morphemes can be combined to
form more complex lexical items, such as words” (1967:76). In certain cases, the combination of morphemes into complex units is a regular exercise. For example, the past tense can
be added to most English verbs. Therefore, we have hack/hacked, mince/minced, blow/blew,
catch/caught, will/would, is/was, light/lit, praise/praised, etc. The combination of roots with
derivational affixes tends to be less regular (Langacker 1967:76, Pyles & Algeo 1982: 5, 8).
One can undo a tie, but s/he cannot unopen a window.
Furthermore, affixes take on very interesting characteristics in pronunciation. The following discussion is based on extensive notes I took as a graduate student of linguistics at
Georgetown University in Washington, DC in courses taught by the late Professor Charles
W. Kreidler, one of the leading experts on Phonology at the time.
General Introduction | 3
SUFFIXES AND MOBILE STRESS
When a prefix or suffix of Old English origin is added to a word, it has no effect on the
position of stress; for example:
‘brother
‘thoughtful
‘brotherly
un’thoughtful
‘brotherhood
un’thoughtfulness
In contrast, words of Greek, Latin and Romance origin often show a shift of stress when
an affix is added or changed; for instance:
‘origin
‘photo,graph
o’riginal
pho’tography
o,rigi’nality
,photo’graphic
As a result, the full vowel of one word becomes a reduced vowel in a related word, and vice
versa. Compare the first vowel of origin and original, the second vowel of photograph and
photography.
NEUTRAL SUFFIXES
As noted above, when a suffix of Old English origin is added to a word, stress does not
change; e.g., ‘neighbor, ‘neighborly, ‘neighborliness, ‘neighborhood. Thus, linguists say that
suffixes of Old English origin (and a few others) are NEUTRAL: i.e. they are added to
independent words and have no effect on the stress. For example, the words ab’sorbing,
‘interesting, pre’vailing, and ‘terri,fying have the same stressed syllables as the words without
the suffix -ing. This -ing is a neutral suffix, and so are -hood, -ly, and -ness, as illustrated
above. It should also be noted that although most neutral suffixes are of Old English
origin, this does not mean that words in which they occur are necessarily of Old English
origin.
PREFIXES
Classifying the pieces of language is never a simple task. We call words like down and up
particles of prepositions, depending upon how they act in compound verbs. Consider the
following sentences:
The boat floated down the stream.
The boat floated downstream.
It is usual to say that the first sentence contains a phrase down the stream, consisting of
a preposition down and a noun phrase the stream, and that the second sentence has a
4 | Fettered -tions and -isms
compound adverb downstream. However, the difference is certainly not great. Furthermore,
we might equally well say that downstream is composed of a prefix down- and a base stream.
Earlier, a distinction was made between neutral suffixes, which are added to independent words (e.g., arriv-al, build-ing, procure-ment), and other suffixes which are attached
to bases that typically have no independent prefixes which can be called neutral and others
which are non-neutral. The distinction is seen, for example, in the following:
re-cover
recover
“to cover again”
“to get over an illness; to re-gain possession of ”
The first, which we represent as re-cover, has a neutral prefix; the second, re=cover, does
not. Generally, neutral prefixes are either tonic (the place of greatest prominence in an
intonation unit) or countertonic, and non-neutral prefixes are atonic, unstressed.
Four non-neutral prefixes, a-, be-, for-, with-, occur in various types of words—nouns,
verbs, adjectives, adverbs—always unstressed; for example:
arise
behold
forbear
withdraw
award
belief
forget
withhold
asleep
beneath
forgive
withstand
ahead
beside
forsake
In contrast, such neutral prefixes as after-, by-, down-, fore-, in-, off-, on-, over-, under-, and
up- are typically stressed on the prefix in nouns and on the base in verbs (with half-stress
on the other part).
Nouns: afterthought
infield
underbrush
bylaw
onset
upkeep
Verbs:
infringe offload
undergo uphold
foreclose
overcome
downfall
outbreak
forearm
overcoat
outgrow
There are several noun-verb pairs, written alike, which differ in speech because the nouns
are stressed on the first syllable, the verbs on the second:
offset
overlook
overflow
upset
overlap
upturn
overthrow
General Introduction | 5
Compare also these verb-noun pairs:
,fore’see
,out’grow
,over’draw
‘fore,sight
‘out,growth
‘over,draft
In a few cases, such as ‘by,pass and ‘out,line, the verbs have been derived from the nouns
and so are identical in stress. On the other hand, nouns formed from verbs by addition of a
neutral suffix, such as ,under’stand and ,with’drawal, have the stress pattern of the base word.
Adverbs with these prefixes have main stress on the second element, the base, as in
,down’stairs, ,off’stage, ,over’head. Since some of these prefixes exist in contrastive pairs—
down and up, on and off, in and out, stress may shift in a contrastive focus:
‘on,stage and ‘off,stage
‘in,side or ‘out,side
The neutral prefix mis- is regular so far as verbs are concerned: ,mis’judge, ,mis’lead,
,mispro’nounce, ,mis’spell, etc. Nouns are less regular; ‘mis,fit and ‘mis,print are stressed on
the prefix, but others are stressed on the base, e.g., ,mis’deed, ,mis’fortune; thus, there are
some verb-noun pairs which are homophonous: ,mis’rule, ,mis’trust.
The prefix un occurs in verbs, nouns, adjectives, and derived adverbs. The following
are some examples:
unbutton
unbelief
uncertain
unmercifully
undo
unconcern
unclean
unquestionably
unfurl
unrest
unfair
unsuitably
unpack
untruth
unreal
In all of these, the main stress is on the base and half-stress on the prefix. However, un-,
like mis-, is often in contrast with zero (the absence of a prefix) and, therefore, capable of
a contrastive stress as in the following examples:
‘deeds and ‘mis,deeds
‘locked or ‘un,locked
All the prefixes discussed so far are of Germanic (Old English or Scandinavian) origin. In
words which have come from Latin, directly or through French, the number of prefixes
is larger (about two dozen), the bases to which they are attached are numerous and, of
course, the number of words formed this way is large. Some prefixes vary in form accord-
6 | Fettered -tions and -isms
ing to the first segment of the base to which they are attached, but most of the variations
are just a matter of spelling.
abs=tract
ad=apt
ap=pend
con=cern
cor=rect
contra=dict
de=tract
dis=tract
ex=tract
in=tend
inter=rupt
intro=duce
ob=struct
per=fect
post=pone
pro=vide
re=sume
se=lect
super=sede
sub=sume
sup=press
ab=solve
ac=quire
as=sume
com=bine
af=fect
at=tend
co=here
di-vide
e=vict
im=pose
dif=fuse
ef=fect
il=lude
ir=rupt
oc=cur
of=fend
op=press
suc=ceed
suf=fuse
sug=gest
al=ly
an=nex
col=lect
o=mit
In all the preceding verbs, one can observe a morphological rule for stress: A verb which
consists of a prefix plus a one-syllable base is stressed on the base. One can observe further
the following:
1. Most of the bases are heavy syllables, with a tense vowel (post=pone, re=sume, suc=ceed)
or a cluster of consonants (de=tract, in=tend, sug=gest), so that the base, the ult of the
word, is properly stressed by the phonological rule as well as the morphological rule.
2. Some bases are not heavy syllables—e.g., o=mit, pro=pel, sup=press; the basic verb rule
would put stress on the penult, i.e. the prefix; stress in these verbs is determined by the
morphological rule alone.
3. Some verbs have bisyllabic prefixes—e.g., contra=dict, inter=rupt, super=sede; the basic
verb rule would have stress on the antepenult, but they are stressed on the ult because the
morphological structure is prefix plus base. The morphological rule takes precedence.
General Introduction | 7
4. A few verbs contain two prefixes and a base. The stress is on the base:
com=pre=hend cor=re=spond
re=pre=sent
re=co=lect
re=sur=rect
For the purpose of this book, it should be noted that stress is not only a possible way of
distinguishing between parts of speech, it also can be a marker for contrast between words
which are similar in form but opposite in meaning.
BASIC ORGANIZATION OF THE REST OF THE BOOK
The rest of this book is divided into 10 chapters. Chapter 2 by Mark Bryan discusses
Assassination. Chapter 3 by Vassia Gueorguieva is on Balkanization. Chapter 4 by Sahardid
Kassim looks at Colonization and Neo-colonization. Chapter 5 by Brad David is about
Globalization. Chapter 6 by T. Ravi examines Militarization. Chapter 7 by Tomoko Otsuka
analyzes Nationalization. Chapter 8 by Simran Sodhi reviews Westernization. Chapter 9
by Chris Henson looks at Liberalism and Neo-liberalism. Chapter 10 by Jennifer Ramsey
is about Communism. And Chapter 11 by Andrew Willis analyzes Anarchism. To ensure
coherence and cohesion throughout the book, each chapter is divided into four major
sections. The first section is an introduction that discusses what the chapter is about, the
competing definitions of the -tion or -ism phenomenon with which the chapter deals, and
the essence of the chapter. The second section discusses the competing theories on the
phenomenon, how each theory fares, and what the chapter adds to those theories. The
third section analyzes at least three cases vis-a-vis the phenomenon and shows how the
cases demonstrate the hampering of development and, consequently, peace. The fourth
section entails the conclusion that summarizes the main points in the chapter and suggestions on how the phenomenon can be amended to promote peace in today’s world and in
the future.
The -tion and -ism phenomena studied in this book comprise a closed set within which
it is easier to understand how and why new insights emerged, and what was overlooked.
Occasionally, they show ‘new’ ideas as rediscoveries. But since today’s studies about peaceful human relations are in process, to understand them, let alone to evaluate them, is
more difficult. Analysts abandon or redefine traditional terms and produce such a welter
of innovations that it is not easy to find a neutral framework within which they can be
compared.
What unifies the chapters in this book can appear rather banal. But many linguistic
insights are so obvious, so fundamental, that they are difficult to absorb, appreciate, and
express with fresh clarity. Some of the more basic ones will be isolated from accounts of
investigators who have earned their contemporaries’ respect. Thus, the originality of this
book hinges upon the clarity with which familiar facts about the -tion and -ism phenomena
examined are marshaled into a simpler, linguistically satisfying unity.